ctx_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval ('Get'), which is clear. However, it does not disclose rate limits, size limits on returned data, whether the memory is returned in full or trimmed, or if authentication is needed. For a retrieval tool, 3 is fair given the 'full provenance' hint suggests rich data returns.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, functional sentence with no wasted words. Every term ('specific memory', 'ID', 'full provenance') directly communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a required single parameter, no enums, and an output schema present (which presumably describes return structure), the description is largely complete. It lacks guidance on obtaining the memory_id or handling missing IDs, but the tool's simplicity and the output schema reduce the need for more description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (the input schema has no description for memory_id), so the description must compensate. It names 'memory_id' as the parameter but does not explain its format (e.g., UUID, string pattern) or how to obtain it. Baseline 3 since description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Get a specific memory' clearly indicates retrieval by ID. It is well differentiated from siblings like ctx_search (search vs. exact ID lookup), ctx_save (creation), ctx_update (modification), and ctx_delete (deletion).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with ctx_search for retrieving memories without knowing the exact ID, nor specify prerequisites like having a valid memory_id. The context of 'full provenance' is hinted but not elaborated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.